Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Supreme Court

I now believe Janice Brown to be an ideal nominee for the Supreme Court. She is very well respected. She has also come up through the California system indicating the depth of respect for her wisdom. Finally, across a broad range of issues-- fiscally, socially, and constitutionally-- she is a conservatives conservative. And yet, as outlined above, she came up through California which surely indicates that her rulings just make sense to a very wide cross-cutting cast of all Americans.

She has two knocks. One is she might be a few years older than an ideal (very long lasting) appointment. Second, and basically contrarily, she will be branded as inexperienced (she was just confirmed to the DC Circuit on June 8, 2005). But she has survived this characterization before.



Tuesday, July 05, 2005

Supreme Court

With my independent cap on, I just will not really be able to understand if Dems and Libs throw a big fuss no matter who Bush nominates. I don't care how conservative. If O'Conner had been appointed by Clinton or a Dem that would be one thing. There could be a tilt involved. But the truth of the matter is that this is a Reagan appointee. I suppose the last gasp argument by the dems will be the most ironic-- someone will be quoted longing for the days when Reagan was President.

Moreover, when the facts come out, the majority of the court-- no matter how conservative the replacement is-- (per my understanding) will still be voting the other way.

As for conservatives, I would step back and take whatever comes with a prayer and a positive eye to the future.

The country is becoming more conservative-- or maybe more appropriately, more Republican. While Dems/Libs portray Republicans as monolithic the fact is that it is a growing, majority party of give-and-take. Republicans essentially keep themselves in check. Many favorable developments lie ahead, but just now ALWAYS the way you want them to.

My opinon.


Guess I'm not the only one that was turned off by the whole thing.

An excellent read-- all the way through. By Mark Steyn.


John Stuart Mill quote

Via Hugh Hewitt's blog

· “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing which for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his person safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” John Stuart Mill, 1806-1873


John Hinderaker couldn't be more wrong. He wrongly reads conservatives reaction to Kelo as anti-capitalist because it against one person profiting over another. He couldn't be more wrong.

First, there is a fair market price for everything. Just because one home in an area sells for a certain price doesn't mean that all homes in that area have that same market price when it comes to selling. And this doesn't mean just because one is bigger than the other-- this argument is based on square foot priced and any other quality factors. What comes into play here is that value is in the eye of the beholder. There is a reason why everyone's home isn't constantly on the market. You put it up for sale when your ready or want to. If you come in and offer a deal that can't be turned down you will see the market at work. So the problem becomes that the developer doesn't feel their own profit should be dimished by paying this higher FAIR MARKET price to a couple of holdouts. So then the city gets involved in who should get the profits. Should the person owning the land now? Or should the person buying be entitled not to have to pay fair market value. Again, there is ALW AYS a fair market price. Worth repeating again, there is ALWAYS a fair market price. But that price isn't what the neighbors identical house sold for. It is what that particular owner feels is right. And if the developer is upset at the erosion of their own profits that is just the way BUSINESS and the FREE MARKET work. Of course, who will the municipality/government side with in a dispute? The one who will be paying much larger taxes in the FUTURE.

So, it is entirely FREE market to be against Kelo.

Second, property rights were one of the MAJOR, KEY bedrocks of the founding of this country. Protection of property is of the highest order in this country. Erosion of this so casually is hard to believe.

Finally, back to the first point, the ARBITRARY transfer of property from one person to another is so contrary to American thought. Profit to a PARTICULAR business is not a free-market, pro-market, or any other kind of market, or capitalist, thought.

John Hinderaker-- time to go back to the table and write something a little more thought out.



George Washington

Even more de-based from reality is that Williams is also saying that today's terrorists are actually the beginnings of something good. And this clearly indicates the depth to which Williams believes that if one must choose between the U.S. and terrorists, he clearly believes, wholeheartedly that the terrorists are revolutionaries that are really on to something.

Even more strange is the idea of a major network news man making presumptions about what people said in England in the 18th century without consulting a history book or basing such an idea on historical documents. 'Rather', Williams just out of the sky makes a huge leaping claim that England probably had these types of thoughts.

As previous bloggers have clearly explained, what George Washington and the Founders did in setting up this country is so opposed to the totalitarian ideology of terrorism that it is amazing that a network news anchor is so disengaged from common sense to make such a claim. The wisdom of a life-experienced veteran of wars and/or farming, and/or just small town life in a rural state in this country dwarfs that of today's so-called intellectualism in big, old media.

And I thought NBC was going to clean up this garbage as Brokaw retired.

As, Hugh Hewitt has been stating, there is a "new media" rising up. People like me who grew up thinking they were just watching Tom Brokaw give us the news as it was, have now learned (and learned again) that what we have been seeing is a heavily shaded and skewed view of the world. And we are hungry for new media. Talk radio and Fox News is just the start.

Sunday, July 03, 2005

Anti Live 8

Perhaps I am in the minority, but watching a bunch of gazillionaires make pleas to the masses to help the poor is not exactly stirring. Watching them pull together 'hundreds of thousands' of people to drink beer, kool-aid, and jump up and down really doesn't accomplish much of anything. If Will Smith wants to get down and dirty and encourage others to join him in the trenches of fighting poverty then that would be one thing. But lip service at a big party gets nothing done-- all the while, the people there, and the pictures that go around the globe make it seem as if something actually is getting accomplished. It is the Bill Clinton way of getting things done. So long as you can act like you do something, its getting accomplished. Its like the mentality where people rest assured that they are doing their share because they vote. Or, well, I was there at Live 8 so I did something.
The world is changing for the better. But it has nothing to do with Live 8 charades. You have to look away from the fanfare. While those people were out partying and talking about how somebody else needs to do something there were just as many people (unscientific thought that I have) around the globe volunteering their time at soup kitchens or food drives. They won't get reported about, they aren't seeking attention. They just did a small part. A small part with many others doing small parts. And collectively the accomplishment is enormous-- baby steps to a better future. And each of them accomplished-- in a couple hours of volunteering-- much, much, much, much more. And, they will get up and do it again the next day or the next week.